is photography supposed to be reality ?

[removed account4]

In proposing an alternate reality that doesn't exist, you are assuming there is a reality that does exist. Not everyone agrees what exactly that reality is, so you may get some blowback as to what you think yours is.

thats right ... how is a camera made image supposed to be reality when no one even can agree what reality is ...

jim10219 right on !
and your translation is right,
this is not a painting of a pipe ...
it might look like one but its not one

 

[faberryman]

thats right ... how is a camera made image supposed to be reality when no one even can agree what reality is ...

jim10219 right on !
and your translation is right,
this is not a painting of a pipe ...
it might look like one but its not one

It could be a reflection of your reality, though I think it is better to say it reflects your point of view. Or it could intentionally be something entirely different. Virtually all photographs are the result of an individual's intention.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The reality is that what is seen is actually there. It does not extend to what is cropped out.

 

[removed account4]

The reality is that what is seen is actually there. It does not extend to what is cropped out.

hello SG
the thing is things can be actually there but be distorted heavily by the lens / shutter speed/aperture/filter that it looks nothing like what is actually there.
not so much things being added or removed from the frame. i can leave my camera's shutter open at an intersection for 9 seconds and cars vanish.
they were there the whole time but the camera did not express reality ...

 

[cowanw]

I am looking at a Daguerreotype circa 1850, which is a portrait of Wilhelmina Dahl nee Weiby. It is certainly real. I know it is not actually Wilhelmina; she's been dead for more than 100 years. But I do know that the light that reflected off her and passed through the lens and struck the plate, changed the Mercury/silver in such a way as to leave an image precisely according to its chemical nature. That real image could only be that of a real Wilhelmina.
Beyond that, John, you will need to define what it is you mean by the reality you wish to discuss, because I think that reality means something different to everybody posting.

 

[cowanw]

hello SG
the thing is things can be actually there but be distorted heavily by the lens / shutter speed/aperture/filter that it looks nothing like what is actually there.
not so much things being added or removed from the frame. i can leave my camera's shutter open at an intersection for 9 seconds and cars vanish.
they were there the whole time but the camera did not express reality ...

All the light that was reflected and passed through the lens contributed to the image and that image would only look as it does if that particular light had passed. It may be a different way of looking, but it certainly is a real and unique image made by only those light rays. So again I think you are going to have to define what you want reality to mean.
PS I am a fan of Maris as to the chemical nature and definition of a photograph. So my thoughts should be taken in light of that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am looking at a Daguerreotype circa 1850, which is a portrait of Wilhelmina Dahl nee Weiby. It is certainly real. I know it is not actually Wilhelmina; she's been dead for more than 100 years. But I do know that the light that reflected off her and passed through the lens and struck the plate, changed the Mercury/silver in such a way as to leave an image precisely according to its chemical nature. That real image could only be that of a real Wilhelmina.
Beyond that, John, you will need to define what it is you mean by the reality you wish to discuss, because I think that reality means something different to everybody posting.

Exactly, and you will note that she does not have fangs nor horns growing out of her head.

 

[removed account4]

Exactly, and you will note that she does not have fangs nor horns growing out of her head.

but you will also notice her eyes do not look like her eyes because of the long exposure and she blinked. its not the big things that
might not be "normal" but little things that don't add up

 

[removed account4]

PS I am a fan of Maris as to the chemical nature and definition of a photograph. So my thoughts should be taken in light of that.

me too caught it straight off !
i guess photography just shows time is fluid and never stops even when it does with a camera .. maybe thats part of the reality that it shows ...

 

[Maris]

The original question linking photography and reality is so naively put - define your terms - what assumptions have you started with - how do you assess opinions offered - do you have the knowledge base to recognise the right answer - that the question cannot be meaningfully answered. It's the sort gaffe that turns up in first semester philosophy graduate courses. Genuine investigations into the nature of reality and how it may connect to perception of things in the world are part of a deep, ancient, and complex discipline called ontology. And ontology is just a fragment of the grand edifice of metaphysics. This stuff is hard going even for professional philosophers. It's been an entertaining thread so far!

 

[Ai Print]

When I was a kid starting to take pictures I thought photography was reality. I soon learned that it's not possible.

When I was a kid I also thought photography was reality. I still do and do my best to uphold that ethic in my work to this day.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Some, yes. Some, no.

 

[Ron789]

What is reality? Do we know? Or is everything we think we know based on (imperfect) human observation (= interpretation)? Plato raised the question, stating that everything we humans observe is nothing but shadows of reality. Has his question ever been answered?
Regardless of the answer to this philosophical question.... no photo can ever show reality.

 

[Dali]

When I hear the word reality, I reach for my camera...

 

[removed account4]

The original question linking photography and reality is so naively put - define your terms - what assumptions have you started with - how do you assess opinions offered - do you have the knowledge base to recognise the right answer - that the question cannot be meaningfully answered. It's the sort gaffe that turns up in first semester philosophy graduate courses. Genuine investigations into the nature of reality and how it may connect to perception of things in the world are part of a deep, ancient, and complex discipline called ontology. And ontology is just a fragment of the grand edifice of metaphysics. This stuff is hard going even for professional philosophers. It's been an entertaining thread so far!

sensei
forgive me that my opening statement was a gaffe i am a clueless, naive, goofball, lay-person
who has never philosophized more than bill + ted in their excellant adventure .. you know, with SO-crates
im glad the thread has been entertaining, it was meant to be just that, seeing there are so many
threads that are "hard core" or others that end up like a death match in the octagon !

respectfully
john

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Since it is photography forum, I'll make it simple
One for yes.


And one for no:

 

[removed account4]

Ko.Fe.

exactly ! thanks

 

[Dali]

The original question linking photography and reality is so naively put - define your terms - what assumptions have you started with - how do you assess opinions offered - do you have the knowledge base to recognise the right answer - that the question cannot be meaningfully answered. It's the sort gaffe that turns up in first semester philosophy graduate courses. Genuine investigations into the nature of reality and how it may connect to perception of things in the world are part of a deep, ancient, and complex discipline called ontology. And ontology is just a fragment of the grand edifice of metaphysics. This stuff is hard going even for professional philosophers. It's been an entertaining thread so far!

Too bad Nietzsche did not take pictures. The artist statement would have been interesting.

 

[cowanw]

but you will also notice her eyes do not look like her eyes because of the long exposure and she blinked. its not the big things that
might not be "normal" but little things that don't add up

By 1850, the time for a daguerreotype was a couple of seconds and so the eyes are as sharp as the rest of the image. In any case if blinking in a photograph makes it less real then I would wonder how one would react to a person you were speaking to should they blink. Do they become less real during the blink? Obviously, no. But the idea harks back to a artistic convention of the 1830's and 1840's in that smiles and shadows were fleeting and unflattering. It may be the stylistic convention to flood light and have a deadpan expression rather than a technical choice of the time.
I thought your's was a worthy question.
Alas I am just to serious to get that it was to be entertainment. My bad. We really should have a smiley of some sort that signals the thread is meant to be entertaining as opposed to serious. For the humour challenged posters like me.

 

[Vaughn]

I vote for reality squared. A photograph is a real thing representing a real thing.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Yes, of course it is, unless you believe that we all share a common reality.

 

[blockend]

I vote for reality squared. A photograph is a real thing representing a real thing.

Indeed.

 

[benjiboy]

Photography is about illusion.

 

[removed account4]

By 1850, the time for a daguerreotype was a couple of seconds and so the eyes are as sharp as the rest of the image. In any case if blinking in a photograph makes it less real then I would wonder how one would react to a person you were speaking to should they blink. Do they become less real during the blink? Obviously, no. But the idea harks back to a artistic convention of the 1830's and 1840's in that smiles and shadows were fleeting and unflattering. It may be the stylistic convention to flood light and have a deadpan expression rather than a technical choice of the time.
I thought your's was a worthy question.
Alas I am just to serious to get that it was to be entertainment. My bad. We really should have a smiley of some sort that signals the thread is meant to be entertaining as opposed to serious. For the humour challenged posters like me.

i see what you mean
but if i see someone whose eyes were glazed over and looking ghoulish in person i'd think something was up !
its more than a blink its a blink with eyes wide open

thanks! i thought it was a worthwhile question too, but like i told maris im absolutely clueless
so i have to take the critiques and roll with them
i can see how people might think it is a straightup joke because of course a photograph is reality what else could it be ?
and i sometimes like goofing around to lighten up the atmosphere ...
but still, while i understand a photograph IS reality, i think that it is something else at the same time..
idealized,? hyper? dreamed ? wishful? kind of like looking at the famous photograph of the drop of milk? or water?
splashing and it looks like a tsunami
stuff you can't see that's always there but too fast or too small to see it ( like germs ) ...

getting back to the intersection with the shutter open ...
while i know 4 cars passed not even their shadow or ghost appears on the film or print
so if someone gives me the print and says " this is the busy street infront of your house " and there is nothing there but .. the street
how do i know it isn't a joke and there were actually cars there ...
i know trees fall in the woods and make sound (i've heard them) i've seen bart simpson clap with one hand .. but this photography thing has got me stumped.
great answers so far ..

 

[Kino]

I vote NO.

We are all trained to interpret photographs; there is no innate ability at birth to recognize a photograph as a representation of anything.

Hand a baby a photo and they chew on it...